Member Info for Jiving

Starbright "inverse bubble” is a good description of our current situation. The key differentiating factor regarding our current shareholder base now vs post IPO in 2010-12 is the absence of institutional investors. They drove the original IPO to a valuation on listing of around $700 million which of course was for only 50% (-1 share) of the Zanaga mine. So 100% of the Zanaga mine was valued at $1.4 billion back in 2010 - before the Xstrata drilling programme proved up the resource & before all the licences & Mining Convention were agreed by the RoC government & legislature. When ZIOC traded at its high of 222p a few months later it implied a valuation of around $2 billion for 100% of the mine - of course I accept that that was on low volume in an illiquid share, but point of fact - it did occur. The funds investing at IPO were predominantly specialist mining funds who had an independent informed valuation/opinion, that made them comfortable investing in ZIOC at that valuation. Also investing at that level in a risky African venture they were anticipating a multiple of that later on - the talk I understand was of an exit target around GBP5 a share or an implied valuation for 100% of the mine of around $4.5 billion.

So simple point - as a company we have already been valued in the $1.4-2 billion range, with specialist mining fund managers anticipating a valuation significantly higher as an exit price. Which is why IF IF we are heading to a situation via negotiation or auction of an NPV based exit price, it is rational & reasonable to base that price around various NPV formulae. My suggested full buyout price is based around a 50:50 blended Stage1/Stage 2 NPV of $5.52b, depending on competitive circumstances there could be a discount of 0-50%, so room for vastly different end results. Previously I had conservatively pitched my takeover price at 50% of that blended NPV, but now in light of the Port MOU I have raised my target exit price to 70%+ of that blended NPV. In the event of an active competitive public auction I could see an eventual exit price closer to the full blended NPV. Does that meet any rational investor's definition of a 'negative' perspective?

Thanks Howard, of course I agree with your points. In just the last couple of months we have seen Barrick's major issues with the Mali government & FMG's problems with the new post-coup government in Gabon. Highlighting what everybody in the intl mining community knows, Africa is a minefield that never goes away or gets better. In an ideal world any consortium taking on Zanaga would be best advised to include a major sovereign partner, which any RoC government would never wish to cross - ie China or the Saudis. Also it is a simple geological reality that many of the world's supply of resources in 'nice' jurisdictions are depleted, & Africa is the likely source of many/most of those remaining.

With regard to our own project, everything that could in practice, be put in place to make it as attractive as possible to a buy-in/buyout bidder is now in place - particularly the Port MOU as well as the power MOU. With the green steel industry worldwide recognising they cannot make the massive investments needed, without first guaranteeing their long term supply of high quality iron ore. We are thus in a good strategic position, as the only major undeveloped high-quality ore site that has a current 2024 FS & is FEED ready - exactly what the major would-be green steel producers are looking for. It is now or never IMO (defined as 3-6 months), but if they miss the goal (again) I'm off.

Haven't seen any sign of that ATG, all the comments below are simply rational investors discussing rational alternative outcomes. And that's because no rational investor 'knows' the actual outcome at this stage, & only ones who think they do are the irrational fantasists who have been repeatedly wrong.

Agree 100% with this ShrewdDude67, they need to finally, finally deliver no more nonsense:

"It's now or never for Zioc now. And by now I mean up to Easter.

If they can't get something going in the current climate then how do you think they ever will? Seriously."

Always, the key change that would bring the share price into line with its theoretical asset value would be the return of institutional investors. Now I know the fantasy of virtually every AIM company investor is the day the institutions arrive, but for ZIOC that once was a reality - the majority of shares in the open market, post-IPO were in institutional hands. They invested because they saw a realistic path to asset value being realised & legged it when they saw it fall apart. If we do not get a straight buyout, but on 11 February the management finally detail a realistic development path ahead, there is no reason institutions would not return - & they have to buy big blocks to build a worthwhile stake.

We all have slightly different perspectives on the most likely outcome, and in practical terms it's surely probabilistic as none of us 'know' the final outcome & possibly neither does ZIOC, even at this stage. My money is still on an eventual full buyout offer (60% likelihood) but whilst I see a chance of that emerging before the 11th (20% of the 60%) , I think its more likely some type of bidding contest will be announced (40% of the 60%). A buy-in or similar arrangement leaving current ZIOC shareholders with between 49% & 80% of the company, I see as overall a 40% likelihood.

With regard to some of the buyback suggestions made here, it's worth bearing in mind there are usually clear rules about offers leading to full bids for UK companies listed on the LSE. Our position is complicated by the fact we are a BVI company not a UK company. One example from P35 of the Prospectus, is that takeover rules are in practice largely at the discretion of the ZIOC BOD, not some independent body:

"There are no provisions governing takeover offers analogous to the City Code applicable in the BVI.

The Company’s Articles of Association, however, incorporate provisions similar to those contained in

Rule 9 of the City Code."

The past tells us what will change the share price trading level. At IPO a majority of the shares on offer went to institutions, particularly specialist mining funds. They bought primarily on the basis of Xstrata's involvement which initially seemed to provide a clear pathway to finance & development & an eventual exit for them at an enhanced NPV related price. When that rationale disappeared, particularly when Glen took over Xstrata, the funds exited en-masse driving the share down from north of 100p to around the 20p level its languished at since.

If events prior to 11 February or a clear pathway to production/sale is outlined on 11 February there must be a reasonable chance some institutions will return & potentially reverse the 100p+ to 20p collapse. It will be interesting to see if mining analysts attend the 11 February event and whether Elphick/AT will do 1-on-1 meetings with previously invested institutions. Clearly the naming of strategic investors in a buy-in/buyout could have that effect, but potentially an announcement of a bidding process (for part/all of the mine) could as well.

The continued progress on the Baowu green steel JV, comes at the same time Vale announces the Khair megahub to produce up to 12m tons of iron ore briquettes - as the essential feedstock for Saudi green steel plans.

"Set to be developed in two phases, the project has the potential to produce up to 12 Mt/y of cold-briquetted iron ore, offering a ground-breaking solution that will accelerate the transition to net-zero steelmaking."

"The Mega Hub at Ras Al-Khair is part of Vale’s broader strategy to develop integrated steelmaking ecosystems in key markets. Alongside Mega Hubs planned for Oman and the UAE, this facility will act as a regional enabler of green steel, supplying high-grade iron ore and fostering collaboration between Vale, steel producers and other industrial players.'

They surely must have plans to directly produce/control the offtake & the Saudis/Baowu like other sophisticated steel operators, would similarly prefer iron ore equity ownership as the best hedge against volatile ore prices. Manara set themselves the goal of acquiring interests/offtake in iron ore - something to date we have heard nothing about. It can't go on, they 'have' to make a move before the few viable assets are snapped up - see Nippon Steel's stake acquisition pre-Xmas.

https://im-mining.com/2025/01/16/vale-to-establish-12-mt-y-cold-briquetted-iron-facility-in-saudi-arabia/https://vale.com/ja/iron-ore-briquettes

Yogiananda, an interesting footnote to that Saudi license news, was that LSE listed gold explorer Kefi has a 15% stake in one of those 6 companies - GMCO. In an RNS today Kefi set a date (28 February 2025, so just over 5 weeks) to receive proposals regarding that stake:

"KEFI has received interest from a number of parties who are now exploring the acquisition of the Company's 15% shareholding in GMCO. As a result, KEFI has set a deadline of 28 February 2025 for the submission of proposals with indicative terms."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/KEFI/gmco-saudi-exploration-enablement-program-0a9gbxyuuqrzk10.html

This is obviously a lower key approach to a Simandou style public auction, but it is an interesting & potentially appropriate alternative. I particularly like the set date - it forces parties to come up with their best bid/approach & promotes a conclusion to the process, something we also desperately need.

Four 1 share trades the current PnD crew must be desperate to get suckers in so they can sell out.

Hopefully they will stream it for those outside London or indeed outside the UK.

Very interesting find Always. 12m tons of DRI pa needs a hell of a lot or high quality ore/pellets.

A Manara/Vale combo remains for me the most likely purchaser of Zanaga, simply because the scale of the Saudi green steel plans requires a world class resource to supply them. (My hunch is they have been haggling over price for the last 2+ years). Also:

1. It likely explains the Lula- MBS phone call that was reported last week.

2. More importantly, where is the ore coming from? It may seem an odd question given Vale is usually seen as the major worldwide producer of higher quality ore, but it seems likely most of their suitable production is already locked into long term contracts. We know this because they told us that was the case, when they merged their Serpentina resource into Anglo's Minas Rio operation last year, then CEO Bartolomeo: "..We plan on allocating our share of the high-quality pellet feed to our pellet plants in Brazil and in the future to the Mega Hubs producing iron ore briquettes”.

Interesting variety of views from LTH's, we should have an answer within the next 3 weeks. We don't know what the answer will be, but frankly any one of them suits me.

You dont have to be a state to run an auction & that is categorically not the point here. Given the mine rights are held in offshore holding companies I am sure an auction/tender process could be legally structured to meet the requirements of the license and those of any bidders. For sure Elphick/Glencore would only undertake something that was completely legitimate & agreeable to the RoC.

A bidding process does not have to be for a full buyout, it could equally easily be held for a buy-in stake or indeed offer both options. Auctions are regularly held by private companies for a vast variety of assets - property, companies, patents, licensing rights - and those are for a range of full/partial buyouts?

Logic & precedence a plenty, the only time we get 'certainty' for any theory is with an RNS. All carefully laid out numerically so you ATG - can meet them point by point, so go ahead.

We will find out on 11 February I have laid out my pitch, all the while highlighting it as a 'possibility' not a given.

This has been at the back of my mind since the RNS of 2 January. What if the 'process' referred to here “…update to shareholders on the Company's strategic partner process” is the announcement of a formal bidding process/contest? There are three reasons why this might be the case:

1. The best method to get the highest price for an asset is to make it available to the maximum number of interested parties via a formal public bidding process with set terms & fixed submission date. This is not simply a theoretical proposition, but the exact method that was used by the Guinean Government to secure the best deal for Simandou blocks 1 & 2 in 2019.

We have no evidence whatsoever that a single bidder has finally emerged (btw if one does, I welcome any sale RNS at any time…). Indeed the last indications we had regarding the strategic partners, were the Daily Mail article of 24 June where ‘insider’ stated “Several companies are reportedly interested, ranging from those considering a consortium stake to others looking to acquire Zanaga entirely.“ emphasis on the “several”. We also had the interviews/discussion around Marty’s FS marketing trip of May-June 2024 where it was revealed he had visited 5-6 potential strategic investors - again ‘multiple’. What if ZIOC is keeping multiple possible strategic investors abreast of the de-risking/valuation enhancing developments that are taking place (see Port MOU), with a view to setting up a bidding process. This would obtain the highest price based on the critical valuation enhancing developments of the last few months?

2. As above, the Port MOU has massively de-risked the Zanaga mining project that since 2012 (when AT revealed the last one fell through) has not had a working port able to take its product to market. A potential bidder for the Zanaga mine would have not only had to finance Stage 1 of the mine, but also either find a port operator or finance the port as well as the mine. So we are now finally at a stage with the project where the maximum number of strategic investors is likely to be interested in the de-risked project. In those circumstances it would make sense to give them an opportunity to make their best bids in a formal bidding process, that would also - due to the public nature of the bidding contest - draw in last minute entrants. Exactly, exactly what happened with Simandou!

3. Simandou held a bidding contest to get the best possible price - so why can’t Zanaga? The Simandou blocks 1 & 2 are a directly comparable resource to Zanaga in terms of ore quality & size, if it made sense for them it surely makes sense for us to use the same bidding process to maximise value/price. Here are the brief details of that 2019 bidding process;

"Mines Minister Abdoulaye Magassouba told Reuters the international tender would be "open, competitive and transparent"."

22.07.19 Guinean Government launch tender for bids for Blocks 1 & 2 of Simandou;

02.08.19 Initial deadline for outline bids (crazy tight deadline!)

06.08.19 Deadline extended to 19 August

19.08.19 Final bidding deadline date (around 30 days from initial announcement)

Process 'expected' to be completed '30 days after [bid deadline].."

13.11.19 SMB Winning announce they have won the tender.

The public announcement had a very interesting consequence, SMB Winning had always been portrayed as the likely winner but FMG suddenly emerged with their own proposal & bid - so a competitive situation was created (others may also have bid, these 2 went public). Did this lead to SMB Winning's final bid being higher than it otherwise might have been outside of a bidding contest?

Incidentally, prospective bidders had to pay $300,000 to access the tender documents for Simandou in 2019. IMO a crazy high price but even 10% of that fee (x6+ bidders) would generate enough revenue to keep ZIOC ticking over for a few months whilst the details were finalised.Some references:

https://www.mining.com/web/guinea-seeks-developers-for-simandou-iron-ore-deposit/

https://www.mining.com/guinea-extends-deadline-to-bid-for-vacant-blocks-of-giant-simandou-iron-ore-deposit/

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/smb-winning-beats-fortescue-to-guinea-iron-ore-deposit-with-14bn-deal-2019-11-13

Incidentally, given the Simandou precedent - which all in the mining industry are of course well aware of; the 2 January RNS may have been designed to push any strategic investors to make a preemptive bid (@ NPV or whatever formula is being indicated by Elphick/Glencore) and avoid the uncertainty of a bidding contest. If so we 'might' get a sale RNS prior to 11 February - for me literally the sooner the better.

Based on the directly comparable bids received for Simandou 1 & 2, together with the purchase of Minas Rio by Anglo for some $5.5-6 billion, I believe there is clear precedent to expect a full buyout bid for Zanaga based around its 2024 FS, to be in the range $4-6 billion, a comparable level to that historically paid for similar undeveloped mines.

Vet10 that is very close to my thoughts ever since I read the 2 January RNS. I have spent the last 2 weeks researching & rationalising what 'possibly' could be about to take place. And I do not think it will be a 'private' bidding contest ending in January but a formal public bidding contest announced at the investor event on 11 February presenting to PIs, institutional investors and the financial & industry press.

No ATG the sequence of events does not lead to your conclusion. There is absolutely nothing from the company directly or indirectly to suggest that multiple bidders mentioned twice in June 2024 have been whittled down to one. Your theory is one possibility among several & I pointedly do not rule it out - it is 'a' possibility.

I set out in detail above my rationale.

ATG, please explain - quoting evidence - why the port MOU means there is a single preferred bidder rather than. a competitive situation. Actually nobody knows the current state of play, except the people in the company, so there is a range of possibilities as to what is happening.

Driving, I view Rio/Glen as an unnecessary distraction, it is not a good corporate fit. The long awaited port news was the single most valuation positive news we have had since IPO. It simultaneously massively increased our likely acquisition price & increased the number of potential bidders into an infrastructure de-risked mining asset. It would have been madness to have agreed any 'price' with a strategic partner prior to this news, which is why I think/hope we remain in a competitive situation with a clear explanation of the way ahead coming on or before 11 February.